Response: Why You Were Probably Expecting Too Much From Taylor Swift, Andrea Lampros

I read this article today entitled, "Parent Regrets: Why I Wish We Never Went to See Taylor Swift" and the arguments made in the article bother me. I'll go through the post little by little, but the author basically says the following: "Wah, wah, wah, I'm butthurt that Taylor Swift isn't the perfect symbol for feminists and her concerts are too flashy."

Good thing she didn't go to this concert; I imagine her son and husband would be scarred for life.

That said, here we go.

A note to moms: If you're thinking about taking your daughters to see Taylor Swift as their first concert, and maybe your first show since the Indigo Girls in 1996, please don't.

Here's your problem, Andrea. You haven't been to a concert in fifteen years. Things are different now. Concerts need to gross hundreds of millions of dollars now. Taylor Swift doesn't actually make money by selling millions of records (believe it or not). She makes money from endorsements and concert ticket sales. (Unless Tay Tay has a 360 deal, which is a possibility).

If you're thinking you'll see a sweet Southern singer/songwriter on stage with her guitar, a few pretty dresses, and simplistic but heartfelt lyrics, you won't.

If you want to see that, go to the House of Blues. You could probably see someone like Adele there. She's probably more up your alley, although not country or southern.

The overwhelming message of the Swift concert to the sea of girls ages 5 to 55: be pretty, be conventional, be quiet (well, it's OK to scream for me), and definitely put on some lipstick.

Bitch much? Considering anything I've ever seen of Taylor swift, she's hardly "conventional." She wears cute dresses instead of lingerie on stage. You ought to be happy you didn't bring your family to a Britney Spears concert where she dry humps the stage for ninety minutes.

When my 10-year-old daughter learned to belt out "A Place in this World" on her guitar a few months ago, I began to feel some affection for Swift. Country music up until the quasi-country, anti-Bush Dixie Chicks had never appealed to me, but Swift's commitment to writing her own songs and to making her own way in the music business was compelling. And she even maintained some dignity after being publicly berated by an obnoxious Kanye West.

Agreed. Taylor Swift is probably the closest I'd get to country music. She seems to handle herself with dignity and poise too, which is, well, unconventional. Plus she writes her songs, like you said.

On a recent trip to Washington, DC, my husband and I splurged on Swift tickets for ourselves and kids -- an 8-year-old boy and two girls, ages 10 and 12. We thought the young singer would be especially inspirational to our daughters who love her music and are avid musicians.

That's sweet of you. Taking your three children to a concert would be quite the outlay of cash for not just tickets, but food and souvenirs as well. And you suckered your husband into tagging along as well. You sneaky devil, you. However, I'm not sure that your reason of it "being inspirational" to your daughters was the best use of your money. But I'll give you a pass—you haven't been to a concert in fifteen years.

We joined the ebullient, predominantly female concertgoers in floral H&M jumpers and cowboy boots streaming into DC's Verizon Center. Many arrived holding their daughters' hands before the first two opening bands to stand in long lines for Swift t-shirts and merchandise and take photos next to the towering Swift cutouts in the lobby.

I hope people paying that much money for tickets at least saw the opening acts. Oftentimes, that's the best part of a concert. Also, those opening acts might have also served as an inspiration for your daughters. Or your son or even your husband for that matter.

The scene was sweet until you got to the CoverGirl stands (Swift is a CoverGirl) where girls of all ages sat on stools before stage mirrors to receive makeovers -- perhaps selecting the lip and eye colors that Taylor wears.

Cross promotion, baby. I'm sure that's in a contract somewhere. Maybe CoverGirl pays part of the concert expenses, or it's a part of her endorsement, either way, is this really important? Do you never wear makeup? If you do, why do you?

The message -- you're not really beautiful until you cake your tiny, pre-pubescent face with makeup -- wasn't the empowering one I had envisioned. (I later watched a five year old with ruby red lipstick pouting because the color had come off in her cotton candy. Welcome to the hardscrabble world, baby.)

This is actually complete, utter bullshit. What little girl doesn't like playing with makeup? For a child, makeup is a fun, tactile, experiment in dress up. This isn't even relegated to those without a Y chromosome; little boys enjoy make up too. This has nothing to do with empowering or belittling children. It doesn't tell them, "you're only as beautiful as the makeup you cake on your face." And if it does, you're probably not doing a very good job as their mother.

OK, I thought, that's advertising -- not Swift's fault? Actually the pre-tweens in makeup set the scene for the CoverGirl meets Disney extravaganza.

At least you seem to be giving Miss Swift the benefit of the doubt, here. Not sure what the latter half means, but I'm not to keen on the over-Disneyfication of our youth, either.

After her opening "Sparks Fly," that featured an inordinate amount of hair flipping, Swift stood on the stage for what felt like a long and awkward few minutes, taking in the screams of her girl fans, eyes wide open with feigned amazement. Glancing to the far reaches of the arena where fans paid upwards of $130 per ticket (the going rate on Craigslist), she gazed left. She gazed right. She beamed. She stood still and put her hands to her heart.

This is what she does. I've not been to a concert, but any performance I've seen, she does this. I think it's nice actually. She seems earnest in her appreciation of her fans. There aren't many concerts where the artist attempts to make a connection with the entire audience, as opposed to the front few rows. Complaining about ticket prices won't get you anywhere either. That's not something she controls; talk to LiveNation/Ticketmaster about that one. I could write entire blog posts about that, so don't get me started.

Throughout the concert, even the best songs -- "Speak Now" and "Fifteen" -- were convoluted by an elaborate stage show and a relentless multimedia set with projected live images of Swift inside a gigantic framed mirror. Hearts and words with curly-cue lettering flashed on the screens. (The most ironic image projected was of a girl's quaint bulletin board with a tacked up ticket stub for a concert that cost $10.)

I think next time you need to do a little more research, Andrea. You went to a concert at a venue that seats 20,000 and expected an intimate style show. At a place like the Verizon center where you are paying "upwards of $130" a ticket, that's not what you're going to get. You're going to get a show. There will be explosions, lights, lasers, projections, and —yes— even a little hair flipping. You can see concerts for $10, too, though I understand the irony.

Dancers swirled up and down a staircase in the middle of the set and around Swift like something out of Glee, but not as entertaining. The music and lyrics (which do speak to girls) were secondary to the sparkle and fireworks -- literally -- of the stage.

Glee is not entertaining. Glee is just a high production value karaoke run by a couple douchebags who whine anytime a band won't let them use their songs. The show is unoriginal, uninspiring, and boring. Not to mention it's just a vehicle to offload said karaoke onto iTunes. And yes there will be sparkles and fireworks at concerts now. Especially ones that take place in large venues such as the Verizon Center.

Fleshing out the princess theme, Swift even drifted just above the crowd in a floating balcony -- her eyes seemingly meeting the eyes of each concertgoer. My husband was sure she was singing just to him.

Not sure if this is a complaint or not, but perhaps you should have enjoyed the show rather than critiquing every.single.aspect of the show. I'm all for critiquing but you could have tried to enjoy the concert at least a little.

My 10-year-old girl stood rapt on her chair, taking in everything. Like most of the girls (except the 13 year old making out with her boyfriend in the row in front of me) she loudly sang along with each song.

Yeah, you're going to see people making out at concerts. Sometimes same-sex couples if that sort of thing bothers you, or if you wish to protect your children from it (though, I hope not). If kids making out bothers you, I advise you to avoid any festivals or any concert with a "lawn" section. You, your husband, and your children will be exposed to far worse. You'll thank me for it.

I didn't expect Taylor Swift to make any radical, edgy, feminist remarks, but I also didn't expect Gidget meets the Little Mermaid. What an incredible platform for Swift to say something as simple as "Girls rock!" or something even crazier like "Love yourselves!"

I'm sorry, but saying "Girls rock!" or "Love yourselves!" is as lame as Glee. Honestly, this is your job. Do you want to rely on pop stars to get your children to like and appreciate themselves? Sure, maybe it wouldn't hurt for children to receive positive messages from many sources, but—really?— "Girls Rock?" I think I saw that on a backpack. And a t-shirt. And a Trapper Keeper. It was lame every single time.

Instead, she finished each song by looking wide-eyed into the crowd and noting how "amazing" it was that so many peopled came to the show and how "beautiful" everyone looked (incredible how she could see people with all those lights in her eyes).

Are you kidding me? You want her to say "Love yourselves" but telling the crowd how beautiful they look is too chock-full-o-bullshit to you? Maybe she couldn't see the crowd; maybe she could. I have no way of knowing, but complaining that she said you're all beautiful makes you look like you're just trying to find something to complain about. And if people came to see me perform night after night, I'd still find it amazing. I'd find it amazing that anyone would spend that kind of money just to see me, no matter how talented or famous I was. To spend that kind of money is amazing and she understands that. Don't you find it amazing that 20,000 people wanted to watch her sing? Consider most of the spectators were probably so far away that they needed to look at the Jumbotron just to see her.

But people aren't paying money to see her, or even watch her perform. People are paying that money for the experience. Good and bad. Parking at a venue like that? Terrible and practically robbery. Who wants to pay that much for a ticket to a show anyway, much less for five tickets? Souvenirs are crappy and overpriced and the food is equally terrible and expensive. But this is what concerts are. This is the, dare I say, charm of a big concert. This is also why some people prefer small venues. Good luck seeing U2 at one of those, though.

Maybe my family got the vacuous experience we deserved. That would be true if it were just a benignly bad concert experience. The problem is that it was an insidious concert experience that emphasized everything but the artist's voice -- the flowing fairy dresses and saccharine monologues covering up Swift's real power. Covering up girl power.

How was the concert insidious? In what way were you or your family harmed? Maybe this was in the bad part of DC? You went to a venue that seats 20,000 what did you expect if not a flashy, explosion-filled performance. Oh right. You expected girl power.

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe this could still inspire your daughter? Maybe she will look at this and realize that women can play music or create art that tens of thousands of people would be more than happy to converge and experience together. That girls can do whatever they want. They can be wildly successful and play giant arenas like U2 or play small hole-in-the-wall pubs for 100 people. That one can be equally successful playing both places is a lesson you could teach your daughters.

The best moments were rare authentic ones with Swift's top lip a wee bit sweaty, hair oh-so-slightly disheveled, strumming "Mean" on a banjo and later "Fearless" on a ukulele. That's what we had come to see, but it was fleeting.

 That's your token mellow song most every large concert has. Sets like these allow the performer to catch their breath in addition to making a more "direct" appeal to the crowd. This is what you wanted the entire concert to be. This is not how large, high-production concerts are produced. Most people would not be happy paying $135-$500 for this type of concert—especially given that most concertgoers could barely see her on stage with just her banjo.

This isn't her fault, nor is it yours. She puts on a certain concert and you were expecting something different. Should you have maybe done a little research? Yeah, probably. Were your expectations for a super positive, "you go, girl" type experience a little out of reach? Yeah, probably. Not because you were unreasonable, though, mostly just because that's not what the other 19,995 people there wanted to hear. The girl positive messages are in her lyrics and (probably) in interviews she gives.

As the house lights came on, my older daughter, age 12 and a half, gave me a deflated, knowing look. My younger daughter was tired but managed to quietly gush: "I loved it." My son loved his glow stick.

 It sounds like your older children know your expectations, and knew you were disappointed. I don't know if this is good or bad. On one hand, you've gotten your beliefs across, which is good. But on the other hand, they probably wished they could revel in the joy that they just saw a sweet concert with their mom instead of having to worry about your disappointment in the show. In all, you wanted to take your daughter to see a concert, to feel inspired and have fun. Did you do that? Did your children enjoy themselves? That's all that should matter.

I hope more discerning parents than us might think twice about Swift tickets. Better to have to explain the explicit sexuality of someone like Gaga and her "Born this Way" message than to have to undo the message of female powerlessness -- especially from an artist who is so fervently emulated by girls. If you have tickets already, perhaps you can prep your music lover. It's sort of like a game of I Spy: look hard and look deeply for Swift's voice. It's there, just buried in the fluff.

Speak Now tour? More like Speak softly and smile a lot.

I don't normally think of Lady GaGa as "explicitly sexual." Sure her style is a bit avant garde but I don't usually see her shoving dildos in her vagina. I think she just has fun with fashion and has a certain aesthetic she likes (Think: Alexander McQueen). I'd say pop stars like Rhianna or Britney are more sexual than GaGa.

As for "her 'Born This Way' message," what are you talking about? I really hope you're not saying this is a message you'd rather they not know or have to "explain" away. Considering all the complaints you made  about wanting your children exposed to more powerful, positive messages "Born This Way" should be the Holy Grail of positive messages for them to hear.

There's nothing wrong with loving who you are"
She said, "'Cause he made you perfect, babe"

"So hold your head up girl and you'll go far,
Listen to me when I say"

I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

I can think of no more empowering a message than accepting who you are and embracing yourself—realizing that you are beautiful the way you were made. For all her quirks and fancy, Lady Gaga really is a good role model for a child. But so is Taylor Swift. If you are going to let a concert spoil her message, you might not be winning at that little game called Life.

Boobies

It's no secret that I like Scandinavia, so I often find myself reading about or looking at things that are somewhat Scandinavian. I've read a bit about Stieg Larsson's books and some of the controversy surrounding them—namely that his partner feels cheated by his estate for getting nothing. So she held the last book hostage. But now that they are turning the books, turned into Swedish movies, into American movies, there's more controvery. And it's Boobs. Breasts. Nipples. Tits. Whatever word you choose. I'll usually read comments on articles to see what people think, until I realize that humans are pretty stupid, and oftentimes I'll refute them to myself because, well, that's what I do, I guess. But I thought this might be a good topic to discuss and since it's just me here, I'll use the comments to foment a sort of pseudo-discussion. Oh yeah. But first, the picture in all it's tortured, nippled glory:

So there it is.

I've not actually read the books, nor do I know what they're about, so I won't go into that here, but the movie and books are pretty dark from what I understand. Very rated-R, which is something not many studios are willing to do: put $100 million into a rated-R movie. So this movie poster seems to fit my limited understanding of the movie and the books. But lets look at some comments, shall we?

Smoking hot? She’s flat as a board. They should have got someone with boobs.

Of course this comment shows up, I'm just surprised it wasn't first (it was second). The problem is she does have boobs. They're right there, under Daniel Craig's arm. Thankfully, several people responded with helpful comments like these:

She is supposed to be flat, it is in the book.

which makes it helpful for people like me who didn't read the book to know that the studio didn't insist on cartoonish or fake ones. I also learned that Rooney Mara's breasts are apparently much larger than those of the Swedish girl in the original movies.

This comment in particular caught my attention though.

I don’t have a problem with nudity. But I do have a problem with GRATUITOUS nudity, just I have a problem with gratuitous violence. Lisbeth Salander is fighting back from being a victim. To have her posed in such a vulnerable state (and yes, when you’re nude, you’re vulnerable, whether you’re “strong” or not) really negates the power that the Lisbeth character has earned. She is supposed to be the protector, not Blomquist. I doubt that Stieg Larsson would have approved this campaign.

I fail to understand how this is gratuitous nudity. Of course, gratuitous means something different to each individual person, but this is hardly X-rated.

But I think this person is wrong. She says being nude makes you vulnerable. This is true. And yes, Lisbeth (apparently) is fighting back. But this person is flat out wrong. This movie poster negates nothing. This movie poster does not make the character weak, nor does it portray her as such. Nothing about this poster takes away any of the power gained because, yes being nude or posing nude makes one vulnerable.. But only to the extent that they let it do so.

Instead of letting this act drain the character, Rooney Mara has embraced it and that takes a certain amount of strength, doesn't it? How many people would willingly put their half-naked bodies on display for millions of people to see and critique?

Even more importantly, I wonder how many women this picture could inspire to be happy with themselves. As some commenters pointed out, Rooney Mara has small breasts. So what? So do lots of ladies. You don't need to have giant silicone-enhanced breasts to display them. And our society would probably be better off if a  lot more people realized that.

I think this comment sums up, more or less, how I feel on the subject:

A lot of the comments here perfectly illustrate why most of the world regard American as a culturally bankrupt nation. It’s not scandalous or dirty or shocking, it’s just a topless woman. I swear, the moral majority has screwed this country up beyond repair.

BREAKING NEWS: Michelle Obama Eats A Hamburger! And A Shake Too!

It's sad but true The Washington Post reports that the only thing worth reporting about Michelle Obama's visit to a newly opened diner was that she ate a burger, shake, fries, and a diet coke. That's right, not just one sugary sweet drink, but two!

The headline of this story? Seventeen hundred calories of gastrointestinal goodness that Michelle Obama has been campaigning against with her Let's Move Campaign. Maybe she went for a run afterwards? We'll never know because, sadly, WaPo left out any other details.

Of course she did say this to ABC news over a year ago:

I love burgers and fries, you know? And I love ice cream and cake. So do most kids. We're not talking about a lifestyle that excludes all that. That's the fun of being a kid. That's the fun of being a human.

The article also doesn't mention whether she ate the whole meal or not. Maybe she wrapped up a good portion of it and gave it to a homeless person. And then encouraged that person to exercise.

I like what David Katz had to say:

I invite only those whose diets are housed with no walls of glass to hurl a burger in the first lady's direction on the basis of this one lunch

Or, there's this comment by Kitchendragon50:

Burger, fries, Coke, and a shake? I'd bust with that much food.

Unlike multi-mansion Al Gore, the first lady needs to set an example rather than an exception. Let's hear about her daily exercise routine, assuming she has one. No more "do as I say, not as I do" from our national leaders.

First, lots of people can eat varying amounts of food. We're all unique. Second, nowhere does it say how much she ate, just what she ordered. Also, I don't understand what Al Gore has to do with anything. Are they suggesting that the First Lady does not lead by example?

Why do people freak out every time Michelle Obama eats ice cream or something? She isn't saying eat only fruits and vegetables; she's saying be reasonable. As far as I can tell, she looks like she's in fairly decent shape so I don't see how anyone can possibly complain. She hardly looks like your typical practically morbidly obese American.

Good Job, Washington Post!

I Don't See How A Flat Tax Solves Anything

I fully admit, I don't understand the arcane art and science that is taxes and their applicable laws. But there's been something that has sort of been on my mind since around October or so.

Back when the Tea Party movement was in full force (not that it isn't now), there was clamoring for an overhaul of our tax system. I think anyone can agree our tax system is far from perfect, and needlessly convoluted. But their solution, I feel, far oversimplified things. I don't think you can take the most complicated of things, and reduce it to the simplest without losing something.

To boil humans, an extremely complicated species, for sure, into an amoeba, for example. So much would be lost in the process. Intelligent thought, for example. And no, I will not use this as an opportunity to insult tea partiers or republicans. =)

So you have our insanely complicated tax system, thousands of pages of tax codes, and thousands of people to help people understand all this. Big companies hire tax lawyers and accounting firms to pay as little as possible, so on and so forth. Poor people pay no tax, because, well, they're poor. Average people pay average tax, and the rich overwhelmingly pay most of the taxes.

Some people want to change this to a flat tax, and I understand the sentiment. Taxes are complicated, and who wants to pay someone to do their taxes. Who wants to employ an entire government agency to collect them, et cetera. Well, I do, for one.

Imagine that there was a flat tax. First of all, it doesn't work, a flat tax is regressive. Flat tax boils down to a very simple set of ideas:

First, the poor end up paying more taxes. The people who can afford it least actually have to pay more and, in effect become poorer.

Second, the rich pay less in tax. The people who need the money least end up with even more money.

The gross side effect of this nonsense is that the middle class basically disappears. The income inequality is already bad enough, with CEOs making hundreds of times what their workers earn, and that is largely due to the fact that our tax system has been slowly regressing more towards a flat tax (in theory).

But, taxes really aren't that complicated. Most people can file a 1040 or 1040EZ which takes only an hour or so of your time, even if you don't know what you're doing. For self-employed people, taxes can in fact be more complicated, but this is largely do to having to do your own bookkeeping, not an overly complex system of tax codes. How much did you spend on gas and electricity? There's a line for that on the form. How much in entertainment and food? Take half of that and slap it on the form. It's basically a boring adult version of color-by-numbers.

As for the people that taxes are really complicated for? The obscenely rich who have investments and the like who pay lobbyists to insert loopholes that they then hire tax lawyers and accounting firms to exploit to the max. Maybe this is a little biased, but when is the last time you took advantage of a tax loophole? I'll bet Exxon-Mobile does it on a daily basis, like monkeys on the discovery channel. Does it make sense that the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment gets paid $800,000 in wages (taxed at 35%) and $20 million in dividends (taxed at 15%). This is why the tax codes are needlessly complicated, because rich people intended it to be so.

Note: I'm being chastised because the other half would like to work out, so I will bring this post to a close. I actually only intended it to be a short little snippet of a post anyway.

Casting aside the irreparable harm that a flat tax would cause to this country's economy and to it's people, I have another extremely large concern. This is my main concern, really, and why I started this post originally.

If we went to a flat tax for everything, and got rid of the IRS, then what? What about those people? They are now not only out of a job but out of a career. They will have been trained for an industry that no longer exists. The IRS workers would all be out of jobs and basically screwed. Would tea partiers be willing to have the government pay to reeducate these people for new careers? Or are they strictly on their own? Would my dad be able to retire? I don't think he can go back to school for a new career at his age. What about my brother and his family? Would they be out of luck too? Would they add to unemployment and homeless statistics? What about Kaulean who does something related to taxes and auditing for the government?

Also, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and the like. Although I don't like them as businesses, certainly they employ at least some decent people who'd be out of work. As would every other CPA or accountant.

So tell me again, how is a flat tax good, and what problems does it solve? Because frankly, my dear, I just don't see it.

Bill O'Reilly Teaches Kids About Science

I don't know if you heard, but Bill O'Reilly recently suggested that the tides are proof of God's existence. First of all, whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant in this case, so this isn't an anti-God type post. But really, saying that because the tide always goes in and always goes out is hardly proof of God, or anything else, really. One day, maybe it was. But just like wind currents, gravity, and countless other things, science figured out why there are indeed tides. And it's the Moon. All Bill had to do was check Wikipedia.

Afterwards, Bill pretty much got his ass handed to him by the media and academia because his argument was one that one might expect a child to make, not someone who gives news and commentary to millions of people every night. So he fired back.

Sure, maybe the tides are caused by the moon, he argued. But where, pray tell did the moon come from, smart asses. Well, I'm sure it was something like that. In list form, here were his arguments:

- Where did the Moon come from?
- Why doesn't Mars have a moon?
- Why doesn't Venus have a moon?

Naturally, the scientific community took this challenge and ran with it. They ran with it like a Kenyan racing against a crying little fat kid. In this case, the fat kid would be Bill, if you aren't following along.

The Moon did not actually come from God. The moon is the result of a random, but ancient event where a planet hit Earth (barely) and the dust that flew into space coalesced and formed what we today lovingly call "The Moon."

And his argument that Mars doesn't have a moon is kind of laughable considering it actually has two. Although, one might argue that technically he is correct, since Mars does not have one moon, it has two, but that's stretching it.

As for arguing that Venus doesn't have a moon, or that there's no life on other planets (that we know of) that's just silly. Considering a moon forming can be the result of a totally random event like ours, doesn't guarantee that there is a God any more than the sky not being purple or raining
gold bars does.

It's one thing to argue that something exists, we just don't know what it is or can't explain it as being proof of God's existence. But to use a planet's lack of life and satellite as proof that Earth has a God and Venus doesn't is moronic. Maybe dark matter is proof of God's existence, or any number of other phenomena that we cannot yet explain.

Finally, I don't think that God is something you can prove or disprove. Likewise, I don't think you can use the lack of understanding as proof of concept in regards to God. There have been many events attributed to God over the years Man has roamed the planet and many (most?) of them have been explained by science. Like the tides, for instance.

Here is a video from cracked which is kind of a combination of two things I love. Snarky kids are hilarious, especially since they're still untainted by the real world. And Bill O'Reilly saying something dumb.

And I feel bad for him. It's unfortunate that he's wrong and adamant about everything. Truth be told, if he wasn't such a pompous asshole to people, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, how many people really know anything about the tides and astronomy? Of course astronomers and astrophysicists do; it's their job. That combined with his incessant assertions that Fox News is the best in news because they are the most watched is really why I think he deserves getting called out. If you are the most watched news organization, you'd better be damned sure you've got your facts straight.

The Moral Ambiguities Of The Pro Choice/Pro Life Argument

Rick Santorum, if you don't kow, will probably run for president in 2012. Recently, he came under fire for saying this:

"The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer -- is that human life a person under the constitution?" he said. "And Barack Obama says no. Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

He then explained what he meant a few days later:

"For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country."

I know that there are few fights that incite more anger and vitriol in this country than ones centered around abortion rights, and everyone is entitled to their views. There is no right or wrong, necessarily, just right and left, up and down, et cetera. Views are views, they are unique to each person and we must all deal with that fact.

What never really occurred to me, though, is the argument Rick Santorum is making. I don't mean about Obama and blacks and slavery. No, I mean how he is arguing that an unborn fetus is a person, and that he would hope the constitution might recognize that one day.

I understand the moral argument against abortion. I can see how people would think it's wrong. It's not a choice I'd make, and certainly not one I'd ever want to have to consider. But, I know there are many situations where it is the right choice. For those who make it. And their choices never affect me, so I don't really get hung up over what other people choose to do with their own bodies.

But Rick Santorum is suggesting that unborn fetuses are people. People. But how? In what capacity? Do fetuses have any rights? Obviously he'd want them to have the right to life, but what else? I can't imagine what other rights they could give, really. I mean, they are unborn, they have no physical presence in this earthly world.

But what really got me thinking is death. Specifically, the death of an unborn person.

You see, if an unborn fetus is a person, and they have the right to life, then what of their deaths? What if abortion were illegal, but someone did it anyway? Who is the criminal? Is it the mother? The doctor? The father? Maybe it's all of them.

What if the baby is stillborn? That's really no one's fault, but that doesn't change the fact that a person is dead. Would there be a crime there? What about a lithopedion pregnancy, or an ectopic pregnancy?

When does a cell become a person? Conception? When they develop organs? A brain? A heartbeat? How does one even decide that? At the very least, I can understand the rationale some have for arguing that a fetus isn't a person until they are born, until they exit the womb. At that point, they are here, on land, independent of their mother's body. How could one pinpoint any stage earlier than that? Even conception is kind of early, considering it's mostly just two things mushed together to form a cell. (My recollection of health class is a bit fuzzy, so my terms may not be super accurate.)

So would that make abortions murder? Would they be punished the same way killing a child or baby would be? Would it be capital punishment? Is taking someone's life because they took someone else's just another moral conundrum? Especially if that "person" hasn't breathed their own air yet?

Is a miscarriage, or any other complication like those mentioned before, considered manslaughter? Because, when people dies, there are investigations. Someone is at fault when someone dies. A little kid in Connecticut recently died at a gun range firing an Uzi. His dad and the owner of the range were help responsible. If the mother's body destroyed the fetus or the baby, is she liable?

I don't necessarily think people should get abortions, but sometimes they are vital to saving a life. What if the pregnancy will kill the mother, should the baby be aborted? Would that abortion be legal or illegal?

There are a great many things that I do not know, and even more that I am unsure of. but I don't think we can or should legislate morality, because everyone's morals are different. In some cultures, shaking hands is prohibited, or rude. Some people settle arguments with a few punches. Sometimes, maybe it's necessary to have an abortion.

Besides, you have to admit, it's kind of ironic that people get so angry over abortions but those same people (generally) don't seem to have any problems whatsoever with the death penalty.When is it okay to take a life, and when is it prohibited?

Where does the line get drawn?

Have You Heard Of BlogHer?

I don't think I respond to things the way most people do. Sometimes, I feel bad because of how I respond, because I wonder if I am fair, or just whiny. For the record, I'm not whiny, though I am a critic. I, like most, have an opinion about everything, and I tend to share it.

I don't praise everything, either. I tend to point out the flaws in things. I don't do this because I'm a Negative Nancy (sorry if anyone named Nancy reads this, it's nothing personal.) I just feel that everyone points out what's good. Look at competition shows: what good is telling people on American Idol they are all talented, or bakers on TLC (don't get me started...) that they're all talented. Of course they are. That's like telling someone on Jeopardy that they are all intelligent. The rounds and rounds of testing they need to pass to get on Jeopardy proves that. Only one person can win.

So I point out what is wrong with things, because I think people tend to overlook them. Not that flaws are bad, mind you. I like flaws, they add character. But sometimes, these grievances need to be aired.

BlogHer is a blogging network of sorts. Basically, it's a collection of blogs that they think women would be interested in. I don't like this. I don't like a men's version either. They are stilted. I'm willing to bet I like more websites on the BlogHer network than the College Humor or Asylum network of sites.

Apparently, men like the following things:

- Women. Lots of them. The less clothing, the better. Some sites offer scantily clad one, others offer naked ones, while others offer celebrities.

- Vehicles. The more horsepower, the better.

- Tools, clothing, video games, movies, music, et cetera.

I don't agree with this. I don't care about looking at things like AskMen or Maxim and seeing women in them. And anytime I click a link to one of those websites that does interest me, I'm inundated with women everywhere, and Krissy facetiously asks me why I'm looking at sexy ladies. But I'm not; she's my sexy lady, so I look at her.

Then there's cars. I don't really care about cars. I have one, it gets me from A to B. I don't need a cat that costs a million dollars, or goes 200 MPH. I don't need to tow a house through the Grand Canyon. I just don't. I have an interest in tools, but I'll get what works and what's needed, it's not an obsession. The rest are really applicable to anyone. In fact, it all is.

Women like movies. Women like music. They even, gasp, play video games. Not just wussy ones, either. They play things like Halo and Call of Duty. True story.

It is in this vein that I disagree with BlogHer. Here is their information page for bloggers and what it says:

• over 90 days old
• open to comments
• that are updated weekly (preferably twice a week, or more)
• free of any advertorial or sponsored posts, and compensated product reviews
• that are not password-protected
• without profanity in the title and/or URL
• that don’t publish adult content
• that don’t belong to another ad network, requiring “above the fold” placement
• hosted by a service that allows advertising (some do not)
• not hosted by a service that places graphic banners at the top of the page
• written by women, or with a demonstrated female audience
• that adhere to our Editorial Guidelines

First, I must add that they randomly made some words bigger than others. Much bigger. This hurts my eyes, and is obnoxious. This is not dynamic, it is stupid. Reading is not a roller coaster ride, it doesn't need to be more exciting. They are guidelines, treat them as such.

They want blogs that have been around for a bit, I understand, they want people to be able to comment, fair enough. They want people who actually blog, and that people can actually see. This all makes sense.

But here's what I don't get. adult content, profanity, and written by women for women. I'm sure there are women that like adult content. They are alienating a large group of women with this. Adult content is exceedingly vague, too. Does this mean no penis? No vaginas? Women love vaginas though, they are beautiful, like childbirth. What about breasts, is that "adult content?" Is a woman grabbing her breasts adult, but checking for breast cancer okay? If so, what is the difference, a woman is touching herself either way.

Profanity. Women curse. Yes, we curse too much as a whole, but profanity hardly should be censored. Women, or anyone else for that matter, do not need to be shielded from language, coarse or otherwise. Fuck isn't going to hurt anybody. Shit, either, unless someone flings poo and it gets into your eyes. But not the word; it's just letters. Maybe copulate and excrement are more suitable. But we all know they just mean fuck and shit. Even women; especially women.

The big one: written by women for a demonstrated female audience. I don't qualify, I'm not a woman. Apparently, men do qualify, though, because David Lebovitz is a member. They just appear to emphasize  women writers, literally, "women" and "female audience" are several sizes larger. I get wanting female writers, though. Women are interested in other women, and simultaneously hate every single one of them. But how does one demonstrate a female audience?

Does blogging about food do it? What about politics, does that do it? Does one need to post about feminist ideas, or emasculate men? Can you write about sex without breaking the earlier rules about adult content? Jezebel certainly doesn't apply, because their writers use profanities and talk about all kinds of adult content, yet they are a blog about and for women. In fact, Krissy makes fun of me when I read it. Blogging for a female audience seems awfully vague about a very specific idea.

Then there are the editorial rules, most of which are fair, and the heart of why I started this post. Their editorial guidelines stipulate:

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked that:

Contains editorial content that has been commissioned and paid for by a third party, and/or contains paid advertising links and/or spam. 

except, they actually encourage it through their reviewer program. Let me explain. BlogHer has advertisers. These advertisers give BlogHer money and products for their bloggers to review and give away. This clearly violates the whole "no sponsored posts" rule, and is, frankly, disappointing.

Here's an example: Right now, BlackBerry is a sponsor, so if you head here you get a page of BlackBerry ads. Also on that page are links to blogs, like this one, which are really just advertorials. Maybe that's not fair, or being too fair. Advertorials are written by the ad agency to look like editorials, and we recognize them as such. No, these paid reviews are more like payola in the music industry.

I clicked one of the BlackBerry posts which led me to a site about baking. What does a baking blog need to review a cell phone for? Computer magazines don't review chocolate. Of course, this isn't really a review either, it just praises the phone.

Uh, I couldn’t be more wrong. This new BlackBerry Style phone is rocked. It features a full QWERTY keyboard and it’s one of two BlackBerry(s) to run on the BlackBerry’s latest OS 6, the best part—it is the only one to sport a 5 megapixel camera. How’s that for being dead wrong? I’m a BlackBerry user and always have been. I love its functionality for work and for play—most importantly, it’s a hardy phone. No cracked glass screen when I drop it. Yes, I know there are sleeves to prevent that, but I firmly believe a phone should be able to withstand a drop without going bust. I’m also a working mom who needs functionality and form to work hand in hand.

Okay, so first impressions are that...it's one of two BlackBerrys with the new OS? That excites her? oh, and a full QWERTY keyboard, because that's unique. It also has a 5 megapixel camera, because when it comes to cameras, megapixels is all that matters.

Here are the things that I look for when I’m phone shopping:
Size
Yes, size does matter. I love that the BlackBerry Style is even smaller than my work issued BlackBerry Bold. That means I can easily slide it in my back pocket for convenience and since it’s a flip phone I don’t have to worry about any accidental butt dials!

Okay, it's smaller. This is a plus? It's smaller, has a full QWERTY keyboard and a 5 megapixel camera?  Anyway, the real benefit here is that the camera is smaller than her old BlackBerry, so she can place it in her back pocket no problem. I can thus only reach one conclusion. Her old BlackBerry must look like this:

Zack Morris, you have a phone call.

The best thing about flip phones? You can totally put them in your back pocket, sit on them all day and not dial old ex-boyfriends with your ass. You might have a nasty case of hemorrhoids, though, so I don't think the back pocket is the ideal place to put a phone. Just sayin'

Camera
Camera. Lights. Action. Go. Okay, so my son doesn’t get this kind of preamble, usually it’s me just shoving my phone’s camera in his face to capture a moment. I don’t carry a point and shoot everywhere but I do carry my phone everywhere. Having said that, I’m loving the 5 megapixel with flash. That’s right five-five megapixels on a phone!

Lights! Camera! Action! Wait, this camera does video? Oh, no, it doesn't. Now I'm confused. Okay, so maybe she confused video and still photography, no biggy. She does have an amazing camera in her phone though. I mean, it's five megapixels! That is unheard of in a phone. Wait, didn't the Nokia N95 have a 5 megapixel camera? When did that come out again? Oh yeah, that's right, 2007. 

Speed
This BlackBerry-baby is fast. For a working mom, time is a commodity—so yeah, I need speed. The load time for switching between web based applications is nil and the search time on the web browser moves at the rate in which I can inhale a cupcake—Ahem, that pretty much means a little under a nano second.

It's fast. Blazing! But the Torch (AT&T) is faster. And then there's the iPhone and many Android based phones with a processor nearly double this ones speed. And the BlackBerry app platform is hardly robust compared to that of Apple or Google. This sounds like total pandering, and I don't like it.

Needless to say, I love this BlackBerry Style phone, so I’m excited that in conjunction with Blogher, BlackBerry is offering this phone with Sprint’s network to (2) lucky winners.

Great! except, they are only giving you the phone, you're on your own for service. And it only works on Sprint. How much does this phone retail for? $399. Yikes! This must be a pretty good prize, no? What's that? You're telling me this phone is only $20 when you sign up for a contract with Sprint?

You can enter thusly:

• Leave a comment letting me know the most important feature you look for when shopping for a mobile phone.
• Tweet about this promotion and leave the URL to that tweet in a comment on this post. 
• Blog about this promotion and leave the URL to that post in a comment on this post.
• For those with no Twitter or blog, read the official rules for alternate form of entry.

Commenting is easy, although clearly this is so BlackBerry knows what people want. That's fine, we all want better phones. Maybe they can give us a phone that the wireless providers can't cripple with their own software? Android is supposed to be open, and it is, but AT&T and Verizon cripple them with their own, closed software. We shouldn't be at the mercy of the providers.

Tweet! That way, #BlackBerry #Style can be trending on #Twitter and people will  be #curious about this #Payola! As they say, any news is good news.

You could also blog about it. I wonder if this counts? Does a blog criticizing the company, the product, and the network count? After all, there was not one flaw reported in that entire "review" Maybe she could have mentioned how the app market is poor compared to competitors. Or that the browser is slower than Apple or Android. How web pages look tiny on the itty-bitty screen? The incessant scrolling and zooming you need to do to read the pages could have been pointed out.

FYI: I just checked, it actually does do video. How could she leave this out?


Here's a real review on the camera courtesy of PCMag:

The Style's 5-megapixel camera could be better. Its awkwardly placed, so it's easy to cover it with your thumb. The continuous autofocus can make for some blurry pictures if you don't wait a second or so for it to lock in. And images are a little bit dark, and show slightly too much color noise. It's not hideous by any means, but there's better out there. The video mode takes 640 by 480 videos at 20 frames per second with a slight pulsing effect; that's behind the 30fps we see on top-of-the-line Android and Apple phones.

 So the camera is actually just okay, and can be kind of annoying.

Anyway, I'm done. I just wanted to dissect BlogHer and their advertorial/Payola system, because this kind of stuff really bothers me. I don't like pandering to companies, and how mommy blogs were kind of founded on it. I'd hate for someone to have read a less then genuine review on a blog only to buy that product and be disappointed.

On Minimum Wage

Minimum wage is kind of misleading. One would think, by its name, that it is the very least you could make and survive, but that's just over $17,000 before taxes in Connecticut, and ours is higher than the rest of the country's. I can't think of a single place you could live in Connecticut on that. Maybe you could hope to find a couch to sleep on at someone else's home, and hope they don't charge you rent?

I understand the argument people will make; minimum wage isn't meant to live on, it's for 16-year olds who are working their first job. Maybe that's true, but I believe there's a better way to go about it. Technically, for the first forty-five days (give or take, I'm not an HR person) they don't even have to pay minimum wage.

So how about we make the minimum wage something a person could actually survive on? Connecticut is expensive. Our taxes are high (we have the third highest tax burden of the country, go us!), homes cost a fortune, and land is exorbitant. So make the minimum wage something like $20/hour. Don't think I don't understand what that means though. Believe me, I know that people would argue that that wage would crush small businesses, but I think those people are wrong.

I realize that that is a lot of money; it's a bit over $41,000 before taxes, and I understand that costs three times more per employee than it does now. I can add up the numbers and figure what that would do to our local grocery store (who pays minimum wage) and realize the costs that would add on. I do realize that this would cost billions of dollars across the country and cost large companies like Target and Wal*Mart millions. But that's okay. I don't mind.

For what it's worth, if I ever employ someone, I am going to pay them a fair wage, not minimum wage, and here's why. Do I want someone doing the bare minimum for me? Say I owned a grocery store, does paying my employees minimum wage inspire them to care? There are a lot of theories in running a business, and I don't know any of them, but I know how I'd run mine: I want everyone to care. When I see school pictures from Lifetouch (or any of the other studios) I can tell the photographer doesn't care. The entire process is filled with people who don't care.

Lifetouch could actually use a pre-school photographer right now; let's look at what they want:

Requirements
• High school diploma or equivalent
• Customer service experience strongly preferred
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
• Previous experience working with children preferred
• Ability to work with minimal supervision as well as in a team environment
• Willing to work a varied seasonal schedule, including early mornings
• Demonstrate a positive and professional image
• Ability to effectively interact with preschool age children and adults
• Accessibility to reliable insured transportation to reach assigned locations. Vehicle insurance must be current and in compliance with state law.
• Must have a valid driver’s license
• Ability to operate camera equipment
• Ability to travel up to 75 mile radius

First and foremost, they want someone who graduated high school, fair enough. They want someone who has customer service experience. I can see that being useful, but for pre-school kids? I kind of don't think customer service helps you deal with pre-schoolers. Communication and interpersonal skills are great, too, but four and five year olds require far different approaches with regard to interpersonal skills than, say, teenagers or adults. Just sayin'. Finally, they get to working with children. I think this is more important, personally. Children are very fickle, and can see right through you; knowing how to approach them and deal with them is paramount, in my opinion. The next few make sense and are basically par for the course with any job. Eighth on the list is the ability to interact with teachers and students, really? Again, I'd suggest this would be more appropriate at number two or so, certainly not eight. Astonishingly, though, is that second to last is the ability to operate a camera, which unto itself is incredibly vague.

If you think about it, though, you realize what their priorities are. Lifetouch doesn't want to hire photographers. No, photographers are expensive. They want someone who can take a picture the way they tell them to. Notice, they don't look for photography experience, just the ability to operate a camera. My niece is four and can operate a camera; alas, she doesn't have a high school diploma though, their number one priority. It doesn't talk about pay, but I'm going to assume it's not a lot; they're looking for, arguably, the bare minimum.

Think about when you go to retail stores and how unhelpful people are. Sure, you get that one really helpful kid that you always look for (that was me!), but most of the people seem like they could care less, right? Well, why should they? These kids generally get treated like garbage (I've seen it, and it's been me), they need to do the jobs of three people, and they have to deal with customers who are usually upset for a reasons that aren't their fault. So for $8.25 an hour, how much do you think they are going to care? Not much, they just want their shift to end.

Imagine if they were paid $20 an hour though. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I think it's worth it. Consider how expensive training employees is; companies hate having to hire people because of that cost. Most of the time they have to go through the pain that is hiring someone because someone quit or was fired. If a business owner needs to hire someone new because business is going so well, I doubt they'd be unhappy. I bet business owners would treat that process better if it cost them $20 an hour, but more importantly, they'd put more effort in because the quicker their employee can work, the better.

Anywhere I have ever worked, training has been an afterthought. They stick you in front of a computer, or have you listen to a CD, or watch a video. That's hardly effective training. It's like going to college. Book knowledge is great, but the real learning is the first six months on the job (from what I hear, I wouldn't know). You had better believe anyone I hire, will be trained by me. I want to know them and I want to trust them. An employee for your company represents you; would you want that person to honestly care, or be there for spending money, because that's what minimum wage is at its current rate.

At this point, I've discussed why I would pay someone a fair wage, but am I right? Moral obligations to your fellow man aside, what about financially? It is awfully expensive to be a human being sometimes, you know. Maybe I am a dreamer, and what I envision in my mind is utterly wrong, but this is how I see it.

I live in Woodbury, it is a small, but affluent town. We have a lot of elderly people here and probably more antique shops than I can count. But let's pretend it's your town. Think of all the business and workers in your town, think of the people spending money. Imagine they all made $40,000 minimum. Most who retail jobs shop where they work. It's convenient because they are there all the time and they know where everything is. Plus, I bet if they were paid well, they'd like the store more (and care about being there more). There are a lot of little shops here in Woodbury. We have a really awesome indie toy store, Geppetto's, but it's expensive. That is, I can't afford it, unless I really think the recipient will appreciate the gift. But I'd rather shop there than K-Mart. Actually, I wouldn't buy a toy from another store (unless it was similar in style). I do this because their toys are well constructed and will last, unlike those from most stores.

There's a grocery store here too. It's different than your average grocery store, though. There are two checkout lanes, they use a wood stick for an order divider. They offer local produce, and local handmade items. I can buy chocolate goat milk there (yum!), along with all kinds of spices and baking goodies I've not found elsewhere. But I can't afford it, although I really wish I could. I want to give them my money (and indeed I sometimes do), but just not enough of it.

I could do a lot with $40,000 a year, though. Combined with Krissy, we'd make no less than $80,000 pre-tax. That's a number I like, and it's just above the number surveys have shown is what it takes to make people happy. (Technically the survey is $75,000 a year per person). We could do a lot with that money, we could, you know, actually live a life. We could, and would, spend money at local businesses. We would buy handmade crafts from local (and not-so-local, thank you Etsy) crafters. We might go out to eat at one of the few nice local places once a week instead of cooking. Ayla's is good for lunch, too. What I'm trying to say is that we would inject a lot more money into the economy, specifically, the local economy. So while it may cost businesses more to pay $20 per hour, in the long run they will reap the benefits.

I wonder what's better for the economy, money circulating or sitting in stocks. Does it really help small businesses when people own billions of dollars in stock? I'm pretty sure if we all had more money, we'd be likely to spend it, no?

Good For Youth?

Something that I think might be even more important, though, is for the younger workers. Teaching kids financial sense aside, a higher minimum wage is common sense. There's no denying that we've become indebted to credit card companies. But what might surprise you is that student loan debt has surpassed that of credit card debt.

Americans owe some $826.5 billion in revolving credit, according to June 2010 figures from the Federal Reserve. (Most of revolving credit is credit-card debt.) Student loans outstanding today -- both federal and private -- total some $829.785 billion

Yeah, we have a combined $1,656,285,000,000 (that is, one trillion, six hundred fifty six billion dollars) in debt between the two. Considering also that 84% of students had credit cards in 2009 with an average debt of $3,173, maybe having the option of saving is a viable one. I figure even working part-time, a student could feasibly save quite a bit before school, and work some during school part-time as well. I don't see how slapping graduating college students with anywhere from $50,000 to $400,000 in debt is a good idea. Perhaps a better, more honest, minimum wage could alleviate some of that. (The larger problem of tuition costs and banks shelling out awful loans could use a revamp, too).

Good For The Elderly?

I've had the pleasure of working with some amazing older folks. Granted, some were a bit ornery and obnoxious, but most of them were happy people who I'm glad to have worked with. But I don't think we ought to have people working until they die. I'm all in favor of people working because they want to, but they shouldn't have to work to pay bills at seventy or eighty.

Let's face it, the older we get, the more our health, and that of our loved ones, suffers. Healthcare is, regrettably, far too expensive. Social Security isn't exactly an amount one can live on, so we have to use savings. Healthcare can obliterate savings in a matter of months to a few years. Increasingly, people are working longer than they have to just to survive. What if those older people, instead of making a paltry $8 or $9 per hour made over twice that. They are capable, and work harder than most people I've worked with. And, hey, they may even enjoy going to work, too.

Unfortunately, I don't see this ever happening. Minimum wage has stayed the same for fifty five years once adjusted for inflation, but the cost of living has skyrocketed. Minimum wage is supposed to combat poverty, but politicians who decide minimum wage don't have to worry about ever earning such a pitiful wage. Maybe they should.

Perhaps having public service jobs pay minimum wage could make a difference. Public service is, after all, a service, not a career. (FYI: most members of congress are actually millionaires). At minimum wage, politicians wouldn't be doing the job for the money, but for the people they represent. It's hard for me to imagine that a millionaire can understand my plight and where I am coming from on a daily basis.

For what it's worth, poverty, in Connecticut, is defined as $21,027 for a married couple with two children. I'm not even going to address how ridiculously low that is. I actually kind of wrote about it here, with some caveats. First, the numbers I used are for a married couple with no children. Second, I used $40,000 in annual salary, almost double the poverty level. My question is, if a married couple in Connecticut can't survive on $40,000 a year, then how can we expect a family of four to survive on $21,027?

Be Kind.

To Middle-Aged People: Ignorance Isn't Bliss

Let me begin by apologizing if you are middle-aged and this does not apply to you. If you are not afraid of technology, then I salute you; you are my kind of person. By no means am I lumping any group of people together, other than the group of people who pride themselves on their ignorance. That said, I hope you read and enjoy, nonetheless; maybe you will feel my pain. I'm sure we all know a few of these types of people.

Ignorance Is...Well, Ignorant

You know the maxim, "Ignorance is bliss"? It's total crap. Really, when is ignorance ever bliss? Sure, for the person who is ignorant, it's kind of nice, but they are ignorant, so why should that count for enough to coin a phrase? No, ignorance isn't bliss, because the rest of us, unfortunately, have to put up with it. But what's even worse, is sometimes we have to defend it. Oh, don't hold it against her, she's just ignorant. Well, maybe she should be educated. (For what it's worth, I didn't intend to suggest with that statement that women exclusively are ignorant, I just needed a gender and it came out, if you are offended, change "she's" to "he's" and "her" to him.")

I have, in the last five years or so, come across a lot of people who claim to be horrible with technology. Any technology. The number of people who use the same excuse kind of bewilders me. What is even more odd, is that I don't talk to that many people, although I did work at CompUSA. That said, I have never liked the phrase "I'm not good at". We all have things that try us more than others. I have struggled with math for most of my life. Am I no good at it? No. I'm pretty sure if I really applied myself, and had the right person to help me, I could get it. Besides, my trouble was mostly with physics, which is another beast altogether. But technology, computers, et cetera, how do people get away with it?

What is even more...infuriating, is that these people actually pride themselves on their ignorance. How is the inability to operate a cellphone a point of pride for some people? It's kind of like being proud that, as a man, you don't put the seat down, you proudly piss all over it (and the floor). (There you go ladies, there's your redemption from earlier. Are we even now?)

What ultimately bothers me though is that I worry for these people. The future is unavoidable. Five years ago, sure maybe you could get away with this kind of attitude. Cell phones weren't nearly as ubiquitous as they are now, computers could be avoided, Twitter didn't exist, and Facebook still required an e-mail address from certain colleges. But what if they get into an accident? What if something happens to them and they can't get help because they can't make a phone call and proudly never got a cell phone. Maybe these people haven't realized it yet, but pay phones don't exist anymore. I think in my travels across the fine state of Connecticut, I've seen maybe two.

I think that we have lost our way as a people. I think there was a time when people did things for themselves, learning and knowing a bit about everything. I'm not expecting the Renaissance, no, but maybe we can be more than one-trick-ponies. No, that sounds a bit unfair. Maybe we shouldn't be so scared of things that are new. Why do new things scare us?

Why So Scared?

I understand newness is scary; we like the familiar. But isn't there at least some exhilaration to cracking something new? I am not a car guy. Cars really don't interest me. I don't need to drive two hundred miles-per-hour, nor do I need a vehicle with six hundred horsepower. Truth be told, I really want a Vespa. But, if something goes wrong, I'd kind of like to give fixing it a try if it's easy enough. Case in point, a battery died, not on my car, but it died nonetheless. I thought to myself that I'd like to deal with it. Changing a battery isn't rocket science (despite what some people may think), so I figured I'd look up what I needed to know and spent an hour or so fixing it. And you know what? I liked it. Maybe it made me feel a little manly, but most of all I was pleased to do something myself and not have to pay someone else to do it. Am I now a car guy? No, not in the least, but I'm still going to attempt to be one.

As the ranking computer person in my family, and the ranking boy in another, I've found myself on the receiving end of this type of unapologetic ignorance. I have changed quite a few batteries, and screwed things that needed screwing (get your mind out of the gutter, mind you, they were screws). I've carried bags, plugged things in, and opened computer cases and that hardly scratches the surface. It's not that I don't mind helping. Honestly I like helping people. What bothers me the most is when someone asks for help because they don't want to try something. I can't tell you how many times this happened at my jobs. Every single one of them, too.

To be honest, I understand the elderly who don't want to deal with computers. I think that maybe they've earned that right. I'm not going to fault them for their stubbornness, but I know of quite a few elderly people who absolutely love their technology now that they've embraced it. But if you are in your forties or fifties, it kind of boggles my mind to ignore computers and technology as a whole.

Looking Forward

I worry for these people. What happens when you are at your job, which you feel secure in, warrants this technology you so fear? Consider for a moment that jobs are being consolidated. Companies figure why pay two people what one can do? Truth be told, the larger the company the more it seems like they want to consolidate four or five jobs into one, but that's a blog for another date.

Technology isn't going anywhere. Technology is here to stay and evolve, and the longer anyone avoids it, the further behind they find themselves. There are a lot of people who dislike math. Like I wrote before, it's not been my strongest subject in life. But you know who doesn't have problems with math? Mathematicians. It's not because they're geniuses. Sure, I bet many of them are, but I think it's for a different reason. Consider the fact that the people involved in the forward motion of math are mathematicians. They don't need to relearn everything, because they are travelling with math as it evolves. This same is true with computers and technology.

Once upon a time, computers were harder to learn than now. Instead of a nice, usable user interface like Windows 7, we had only console screens. Nothing but text. Did you want to plug something in? Well, lots of plugs were proprietary and there were a great many ports on a computer. There are still some remnants left on the back, too. You likely still have a printer port back there. It's, frankly, huge and takes up space. You may have a serial port too, which is much smaller. You may have a floppy drive, too. All of these have been replaced of course to become easier. Most peripherals connect now via USB ports. Fortunately, computers (and most technology) has actually gotten easier to use over time. Computers are actually incredibly easy to use, especially compared to twenty or more years ago. Cellphones, too, are really simple to use. Frankly, I'd hate for something terrible to happen to someone because they couldn't operate a cell phone. So, too, would I hate for someone to lose a job, or be unable to get a job, because they opted to ignore computers.

Looking Back

I remember the beep beep pang whizz of my modem dialing up AOL. I remember the first time I surfed the internet on a decent connection. I remember LAN parties at ten years old. Suffice to say that I am a nerd, a geek, whatever your word of choice for me, I am that. I grew up in a home that wasn't afraid of computers or technology. We had an IBM PS/2, an archaic bit of technology now, but it worked, and I learned on it. To this day I have fond memories of five-inch floppies and the games I played on that machine. As much as I love the new, fancy look and feel of games, I feel that that love is indebted to DOS games and that IBM PS/2.

I remember my brother, Chris, got a computer for Christmas or his birthday one year. Finally, I was moving on up. Yes, it was his computer, in his room, but it was as good as mine. I used it a lot, especially at night. I remember the rise and fall of Napster on that computer, the ever familiar "You've Got Mail" on that computer, and the beginning of my fascination with the internet in general on it. I don't know when it was, but I got a computer eventually, too, from my dad. It's kind of funny in a way, I only got rid of that computer a few years ago. I have a problem discarding computers.

The thing is, I like the environment, I care deeply for it, and I hate to know that I'm hurting it by throwing a computer in the garbage. But my computers have largely been my amigos, so to speak. I've lived through events in my live with them being a part of it. I feel like a lot of my views on life have, at least in part, been formed by my life on the computer.

In The End...

I'm not asking the uninitiated and ignorant people to delve deeply into computers and technology. I don't expect them to understand that everything is ones and zeroes, nor do I want them to understand gates, NAND operations, or the like. No, I just want them to be able to plug one in and turn it on. I want them to be able to take a cell phone and make a phone call. I don't require that they make accounts on Facebook and Twitter (though, I bet a lot of them would like Facebook).  I just want them to try and to realize that, ultimately, computers and all modern technology is precisely that: modern.

I suspect that back in the fifties when televisions were new people weren't so scared. Didn't watching tv together become something of a family event where everyone would gather to watch? It was new, it was exciting! How about microwaves? They were a technological innovation at the time. Cooking food quickly and easily? No need to fire up the oven? Yes, please! But now, all of a sudden, where is this enthusiasm? Aren't the people who are so afraid of modern tech the same who grew up with these innovations? How would they have felt if their parents were afraid of television, and instead held onto their radios like television would be the death of all things good?

Truth is, computers can be daunting. The internet invites us, our humble little selves, in our humble little towns, into the larger, grander world. There are a lot of awful and dangerous things on the internet. There's a lot to fear: viruses, porn, liberals, conservatives, Jesus freaks, atheists, hate mongerers, hippies; they're all there. But that is kind of the beauty of the internet, too. Everyone is represented.

I like vintage things. I like the idea of taking something old but functional and keeping it around. I'd rather reuse something than buy something new. And when I do buy something new, I like it to be something that will last forever. It's very difficult to find that kind of stuff around here though. I also like handmade things. No offense to big corporations, but I like being able to meet the person who made my (fill in the blank), or at the very least being able to talk to them. I don't know where my socks came from, or my pants. Nor do I know who made my television or my mirror. But if I buy hand towels from Etsy or a craft fair instead of K-Mart I feel more of a connection. What I'm trying to say, in an extremely roundabout way, mind you, is that for all the bad that is on the internet, there is an infinite amount of good to counter it. I can now find like minded folks, without having to move to a place like New Haven. But what about those people in the middle of nowhere? Where can they turn? What about gay people who live in fiercely conservative areas? The internet could provide the only solution for them. Sure, there's a lot of hate and controversy on the internet, but there's just as much if not more in real life.

So don't worry. Technology isn't all that scary. And if you need a hand, I don't mind helping you. I'm sure there are others, too, that want to help. All I ask is that you make an effort. That's it, just try. I want you to learn. I want to help you do just that. It's a crazy place out there, but it's the same crazy we're all used to.